Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

BA is Mistaken That Paying Players is Good Policy

bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 21 ✭✭ Sophomore

BA has stated that he is in favor of paying players for the use of their images. On the surface that seems fair but the policy comes with many unintended consequences related to recruitment, player transfers, and enforcement. For example, the California law looks different from legislative bills being considered in 11 or more states. How does the NCAA enforce what ever policies each state legislates? Its crazy but several national media representatives that support these laws have stated that players are being paid under the table already so just make paying them legal. Well everybody speeds so lets just take away all speeding limits? So what does the future look like? Mr. 5 star player decides to go to the highest bidder. Then the next year if some other school's booster offers significantly more he just transfers and sits out a year, or not if he can make up some story for the NCAA.

«134

Comments

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 21 ✭✭ Sophomore

    You make some good points. However, for me the consideration being left out is the value of a college education being received by the players. What is it worth for a player to receive a free college education at UGA including cost of attendance cash? For many universities it would be over a hundred thousand dollars. What needs to happen is the NFL to start a minor league for players who have no interest in more education. That would prepare those star players for the league and they could be paid for their services. Regarding their health, no one is forcing players to play the game. Some play to get a free education but many probably play because they want to try for the league or they just love the game.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 12,555 mod

    Hopefully the XFL will present a viable option for freshmen and sophomores

  • 101ina45101ina45 Posts: 566 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    The college education isn't comparable to what they would get otherwise. In Georgia especially, any of these players who qualify for the HOPE scholarship/Zell Miller scholarship it is a terrible deal. Even OOS guys like Nakobe Dean could have likely gotten scholarship money regardless.


    The NFL could start a minor league/let guys come in straight, but that would actually cheapen college football. People don't wanna watch bums play football. Yes no one is forcing them to play, but it also a raw deal and with no other (realistic) option for a football player, they don't really have a choice save not playing.

  • 101ina45101ina45 Posts: 566 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    P.S. These days, the college education really isn't worth it in a sizable % of cases. I say that as a UGA grad. Depending on your individual degree determines if it is worth "the value" of the cost, but most football players don't have the time to major in something that is worth that value.

  • Dawgs80Dawgs80 Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ Junior

    The way the likeness rule is written is like opening a can of worms and I can see it being used inappropriately very quickly. Say player 1 is looking at schools A and B for football. School A has a booster who is willing to pay the player $5,000 monthly to come to a get together at his place under the pretenses of signing autographs and taking photos. It could become an arms race where the pockets of the boosters control everything.


    The NCAA could easily give these kids a set wage that is standard across the board and be done with this state by state nonsense. Pay any scholarship athlete that is competing for the school x amount per hour while they are involved in any team activities. At this point it is going to be the only way to level the playing field, the cat is out of the bag. Expecting these kids to play a sport, focus on classes, and have a job for spending money is a little excessive when the sport you play takes up most of your time. In the end maybe we can even get EA to start making NCAA Football again but that may be wishful thinking.

  • skidmarksskidmarks Posts: 1,063 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    We better win a natty before all this changes.... there are much bigger fish ponds than GA and a UGA ....

    we will be second tier at best .... that’s a fact

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 21 ✭✭ Sophomore

    I believe this is the latest ruling in Federal District Court related to this issue.

    https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26199067/judge-rules-ncaa-antitrust-lawsuit

  • LowcountryDawg21LowcountryDawg21 Posts: 2,140 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I’m not sure the value of the education is relevant here. The CA bill doesn’t require the schools to pay the players. It allows the player to benefit monetarily from his NLI. A student on a full academic or other scholarship is free to profit off of his or her NLI currently. Athletes should be afforded the same opportunities.

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 21 ✭✭ Sophomore

    The NCAA may eventually lose their anti-trust exemptions. At what point will restricting fair market payment of athletes for their likeness etc. be allowed? Most likely the NCAA will back off and establish some level of maximum reimbursement and other restrictions. However, eventually a state that believes there must be total free market payment for these gladiators will take them back to Federal Court. Its a slippery slope.

  • tfk_fanboytfk_fanboy Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Capitalism is a good thing. The schools are not paying the players.

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 21 ✭✭ Sophomore


    I understand the NY legislation being considered requires schools to pay half their total revenue to the athletes. Maybe a federal law would be more sensible. Well, maybe not.

  • BengalDawgBengalDawg Posts: 425 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Why not just let player go pro out of high school like baseball does. For some of them (mostly basketball) this eliminates the need to pay them. Most of all it keeps the big corporations (See Nike and Oregon) from just saying if you go here we will pay you $XXXX.


    Baseball has a system that works and would be easy to mirror. Kids would have to choose between $ and an education/development. The NFL would still heavily draft 3rd year college players because that is who is ready for the league

  • LowcountryDawg21LowcountryDawg21 Posts: 2,140 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Of course it does. NY looks at what CA does and says “hold my beer.” Of course college football in NY has been a joke for decades.

    Ultimately, you’re correct- this will become a federal issue, whether through the court system or via Congressional action.

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 21 ✭✭ Sophomore

    Thanks for all for the feedback. Some good discussion and that is way I love the forum.

  • BobcatGradBobcatGrad Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I had typed a way too long post for this and deleted. I will just say this, if you had told me 20 years ago I would have so little interest in baseball and NASCAR as I do today, I would have never believed it.

  • RxDawgRxDawg Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    That's the best post I've seen on it yet. Well said.


    My only caveat is I do think what's best for the sport is important to consider. The only reason these players can sell autographs is because of the health of the sport. People are taking it for granted that it will always be about as popular as the NFL is (roughly, i have no numbers, maybe the NFL is way more popular, i dunno). It does seem absurd to not allow the players to make money off their name. Right or wrong, they made this rule to curb abuse for the health of the sport.

  • RxDawgRxDawg Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The idea behind that is winning and having a successful program will bring in more support and more revenue. So having a program with a revenue of 150 million a year spending 2-3% of that on the man in charge of it doesn't seem that far fetched.

Sign In or Register to comment.